DECISION This is an appeal filed by Karachi Port Trust, against an impugned order, dated 12-9-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.III. Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent filed by him under section 25-A, 1,R.0., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was employed as watchman in Watch and Ward Department of the appellant organization since 19-5-1971. That on 4-7-1982, a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent wherein the allegation was levelled that he accepted Rs.200 as illegal gratification from the labourers. That he submitted reply to the charge-sheet which was not found satisfactory, therefore, an enquiry was instituted against him. That, as the management was not satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, therefore, on 24-5-1982, another enquiry was held and on 15--6-1982, a report of this enquiry was also submitted. That, again the appellant Management was not satisfied or, the findings of this enquiry, therefore, they held third enquiry on the same charge and that somehow the appellant Establishment had succeeded to get a report of its choice from the Enquiry Officer in utter violation of the law and the principles of natural justice and consequently, the respondent was dismissed from service on the basis of this enquire report.The respondent submitted a departmental appeal which was also rejected and then he submitted the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The case of the appellant Management before the learned Labour Court was that the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I. R.O.1 969 was not maintainable and that they held proper enquiries against the respondent following the entire procedure as contemplated under the rules and regulations of the K.P.T. That the provision of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 were not attracted with the case of the employees working with the appellant Management. That, on 22-11-1981, the respondent was booked for Special Squad Duty alongwith two other Watchmen from 6-00 a.m. To 2-00 p.m. Shift and that at about 11-30 a.m. The respondent caught 18 labourers in Shed No. 23 without K.P.T. Pass Token and on an enquiry, it was revealed that the labour token had not been issued to Jamadar Muhammad Fazil and the said labourers were allowed to go after taking illegal gratification of Rs.200 from them. That finally the appellant Establishment had admitted that the two enquiries were held against the respondent on the same charge and the last enquiry was conducted at the level of Board and that it was incorrect to say that they have conducted the enquiries in utter violation of labour laws and the principles of natural justice, hence, the respondent was not entitled to any relief, as claimed by him.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence before the learned Labour Court and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Wazir Muhammad Qureshi, Labour Welfare Inspector on behalf of the appellant Establishment and Mr.Muhammad Akram Shahbaz, the learned Advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended on behalf of the appellant Establishment that as the employees of the K.P.T. Were governed under the K.P.T.
Act, 1886, therefore, they could not approach the Labour Court and in this regard, reliance placed on 1983 PLC at page 495. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Akram Shahbaz, the learned Advocate for the respondent workman has referred to me the authority reported in 1983 SCM R 769, wherein Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that employees of K.P.T. Can seek relief from Labour Court and the Labour Court has not been debarred from adjudication cases under section 25-A of I.R.O. Of K.P.T. Employees, therefore, I hold that there is no force in this contention of the appellant Establishment.
6. It was next contended by the appellant Establishment that enquiries on the charge of bribe against the respondent were properly and in accordance with law were held and on the basis of such enquiries, the respondent was rightly dismissed. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that three enquiries were held against the respondent on the one and the same charge and in the two earlier enquiries the respondent was not found guilty of the charge, but, through the third enquiry, he was made to found guilty of the charge and thus was dismissed.
Farther, it was contended that Mr. A.Q. Khan, who held the third enquiry, did not record the statements of the complainants in the presence of the respondent nor he has given any opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and also did not provide an opportunity to the respondent to lead defence evidence, but, he simply relied on the statements of Jamadar Muhammad Fazil and Jamadar Noor Muhammad, dated 24-12-1981 and 31 -12-1981 respectively, recorded by S.I. Shaikh Sardar in the preliminary enquiry at the back of the respondent. This procedure of the enquiry held by Mr. A.Q. Khan was clear in violation of the principle of natural justice, as admittedly, few enquiries were held against the respondent and no action was taken against him on the basis of those enquiry reports, therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to place reliance on the previous statements of the witnesses who were examined in previous enquiries without affording a chance of cross-examining those witnesses or submitting the defence. This clearly establishes that the prosecution had not deliberately produce these two material witnesses before the third enquiry officer to establish the charge of accepting bribe or illegal gratification against the respondent or that they had paid such bribe to the respondent though there is nothing on record to show that these witnesses are dead or their whereabouts were not known to the appellant Management. I, therefore, hold that there is no iota of evidence to establish the charge of bribe or illegal gratification against the respondent; hence his dismissal from service on this charge is illegal and incorrect.
7. For the reasons, stated by me above, I hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent. I, therefore, maintain it and would dismiss this appeal. The appellant establishment is directed to reinstate the respondent in service with full back benefits forthwith.